There is only one goddess Gaia and Al Gore is her only prophet...

[--Pete]

Hi,

Q You charge that the hysteria that's been created around global warming is an enormous financial scam. It's all about money?

A Well, how shall I put it? It's not all about money, but boy, there's a lot of money floating in it. I mean, emissions trading is going to be a multi-trillion dollar market. Emissions alone would keep small countries in business.

Q Are you suggesting that scientists manipulate their findings to get in on the gravy train?

A You have to differentiate the interests of different groups. In the scientific community, your interest is for your field to be recognized so that it will have priority in government funding.

Q So you are not accusing your scientific colleagues of corruption?

A No, I'm accusing them of behaving the way scientists always behave. In other words, some years ago, when Richard Nixon declared war on cancer, almost all the biological sciences then became cancer research. I mean, I don't call that corruption, I'm saying you orient your research so that it has a better chance to get resources.

Q And i thelps if your findings suggest something catastrophic is about to happen?

A In this case it certainly has helped. First of all, the funding increased so greatly that it exceeded the capacity of the existing field to absorb it. You'll notice that Working Group 2 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came up with lots of scary things, but everything was always preceded by could, might, may, all these qualifiers. And the reason it was is those studies start out assuming there's a lot of warming. They assume all the science is in, and then they say, 'Well, how will this impact my field of insect-borne diseases, or agriculture, or health?' So they are almost, by definition, going to generate catastrophic scenarios, but they will never be based on anything other than the hypothesis that this will already happen.

Well, that sounds a lot like what I've been saying. It is something well known and understood in the research community, and seldom if ever discussed outside of it. Doesn't mean that the rest of what he says is true (or false). But the scrutiny that the topic deserves is definitely not there and has never really been there.

There are many reasons not to pollute. There are many reasons to get away from fossil fuels. The necessary actions do not need global warming to support them. If global warming is false, then it will hurt the environmental movement. It already is hurting it because of the controversy.

--Pete

[Zenda]

... Professor Lindzen ...

Is that the professor Lindzen who likes disagreeing so much that he'll even claim there is little connection between smoking and lung cancer? link

[kandrathe]

Is that the professor Lindzen who likes disagreeing so much that he'll even claim there is little connection between smoking and lung cancer? link

I've seen peer reviewed evidence that smoking interferes with nutrition, which leads to many complications including many types of cancers. Inhaling any smoke (from even camp fires) introduces free radicals into the lungs and blood, which cause damage to DNA structures, which when the immune system is weakened can lead to cancers. Barbecued meat causes cancer too.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/78772 <-- Most Lindzen articles cite this one. Good try though. He's a Democrat, and a real climatologist, at one of the worlds leading and respected technology schools.

[Jester]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/78772 <-- Most Lindzen articles cite this one. Good try though. He's a Democrat, and a real climatologist, at one of the worlds leading and respected technology schools.

He might tick the "D" box on the ballot, but he's firmly in the other camp on these issues. Being a contrarian scientist is one thing - publishing in the National Post and the WSJ is another.

As always, the question is the balance. Where does the weight of evidence sit? You can find isolated individuals (even ones with credentials) arguing just about any side of any issue. Sometimes, they're right. Often, they're not. Lindzen's academic credentials are fine, there's no reason to dismiss his work out of hand. However, on climate, his views are against the grain of the field. (The same is true of smoking, although that one obviously isn't his field.)

-Jester

[kandrathe]

He might tick the "D" box on the ballot, but he's firmly in the other camp on these issues. Being a contrarian scientist is one thing - publishing in the National Post and the WSJ is another.

As always, the question is the balance. Where does the weight of evidence sit? You can find isolated individuals (even ones with credentials) arguing just about any side of any issue. Sometimes, they're right. Often, they're not. Lindzen's academic credentials are fine, there's no reason to dismiss his work out of hand. However, on climate, his views are against the grain of the field. (The same is true of smoking, although that one obviously isn't his field.)

I actually think he is more of a moderate. It's the old adage, "Correlation does not indicate causality". Yes, the temperature is on balance rising, which may have something to do with CO2. But, it might also have something more to do with something else (like micro particulates or the sun). I don't see the big disaster looming around the next decade, or probably even the next century.

The bottom line is that whatever the politicians are cooking up in Copenhagen will not undo whatever CO2 build up that has occurred over the past 200 years. We aren't talking about solutions like salting the atmosphere with sulfur dioxide or building solar powered automaton catamarans that sail around the oceans churning up salt mists now are we. No, in Copenhagen they are negotiating how to create a global tax on the citizens of the industrialized nations to be deposited in the world bank. Follow the money.

[Jester]

I actually think he is more of a moderate.

Sure. A moderate - who writes editorials for right wing newspapers excoriating the great global warming scam, who takes shot after shot at Al Gore, who's hangin' with the folks at Cato, Heartland, and so on... very moderate.

There's a chance he might be correct. There's no chance he's in the middle of the pack, scientifically speaking.

It's the old adage, "Correlation does not indicate causality". Yes, the temperature is on balance rising, which may have something to do with CO2. But, it might also have something more to do with something else (like micro particulates or the sun). I don't see the big disaster looming around the next decade, or probably even the next century.

None of these other explanations have gained much traction - even in journals that regularly publish denialist papers. Everyone and their monkey believes they've found the thing that's actually causing warming, but none of it fits the data as well as CO2 does, not by a long shot.

The bottom line is that whatever the politicians are cooking up in Copenhagen will not undo whatever CO2 build up that has occurred over the past 200 years.

You keep saying this. What does this matter? The current level of CO2 is not catastrophic. It is the current *rate of emissions* that is the problem. That's a problem for the future, not the past.

We aren't talking about solutions like salting the atmosphere with sulfur dioxide or building solar powered automaton catamarans that sail around the oceans churning up salt mists now are we.

Unless you're a freakonomist, then no, I guess not. Mostly because these solutions, while novel, are generally untested, impractical, and in some cases, the cure is worse than the disease. I'm all for studying geoengineering, but these mechanisms are hardly ready to be deployed tomorrow - unless we *really* like gambling with the environment. Besides, they'd all have their costs - who pays for them?

No, in Copenhagen they are negotiating how to create a global tax on the citizens of the industrialized nations to be deposited in the world bank. Follow the money.

Sounds like a great idea to me. Easiest way to solve the problem, and the money gets put in a place where it can be put to good use.

-Jester

[Ashock]

Hi,
Well, that sounds a lot like what I've been saying.

Yep, I remember you saying something along those lines. There are certain things I forget, and certain I choose not to.

[Ashock]

Sounds like a great idea to me. Easiest way to solve the problem, and the money gets put in a place where it can be put to good use.

-Jester

Ahh, yes. A World Welfare fund for the disfunctional countries that can't and won't help themselves. What a capital idea.

[kandrathe]

Sure. A moderate - who writes editorials for right wing newspapers excoriating the great global warming scam, who takes shot after shot at Al Gore, who's hangin' with the folks at Cato, Heartland, and so on... very moderate.

Where would you publish articles when your opinion isn't in harmony with Der Zeitgeist?

There's a chance he might be correct. There's no chance he's in the middle of the pack, scientifically speaking.

Probably not the middle of all scientists. Maybe in the middle of climatologists who haven't sold out there science to the big money.

None of these other explanations have gained much traction - even in journals that regularly publish denialist papers. Everyone and their monkey believes they've found the thing that's actually causing warming, but none of it fits the data as well as CO2 does, not by a long shot.

It appears to be difficult to get published if your opinion doesn't declare an imminent end to the planet.

You keep saying this. What does this matter? The current level of CO2 is not catastrophic. It is the current *rate of emissions* that is the problem. That's a problem for the future, not the past.

So, not a problem. Reasonable measures can be taken to obsolete coal and oil fired power plants and redesign the internal combustion engine. There is no imminent need to destroy the economy, or impose burdensome taxes on the industrialized nations.

Unless you're a freakonomist, then no, I guess not. Mostly because these solutions, while novel, are generally untested, impractical, and in some cases, the cure is worse than the disease. I'm all for studying geoengineering, but these mechanisms are hardly ready to be deployed tomorrow - unless we *really* like gambling with the environment. Besides, they'd all have their costs - who pays for them?

The point being that no one is solving the problem of "global warming", what they are hatching is a scheme to separate people from their money.

Sounds like a great idea to me. Easiest way to solve the problem, and the money gets put in a place where it can be put to good use.

I think it comes down to a simple equation... Me = {Less government, less global government, less regulations, more personal responsibility, lower taxation, more capital investment, free enterprise, more jobs, more freedom} and You = not Me. :lol:

How does forcing people to spend more money on everything, and siphoning off that money into the world bank help the environment (other than causing enough death and destruction to reduce the global population)? Why do we never look at GHG emissions per GDP? If you happen to look at trends, then you'd see that GHG/GDP is dropping for most nations, and that GHG/Capita is also decreasing across all nations.

Graph of GHG/GDP for US, Germany, Japan, China.

I think we are actually moving already in the right direction. So, why do you want to steal our money and put it in the world bank?

[Jester]

Okay. Bullet points.

1) Denialists publish. See Lindzen, Pielke Sr., McKitrick and MacIntyre. Read Energy and Environment for the whole mess.

2) Your solutions are wishful thinking fairy tales that will not solve the problem in time to prevent CO2 concentrations from reaching 700 or 800 ppm - if it even stops there.

3) The atmosphere is not measured in GDP. This would be like claiming that Bill Gates can survive arsenic poisoning, because his arsenic/income ratio is very low. It's simply nonsensical.

4) Your simple equation is hilarious. Would you like a side of saccharine with that?

5) The service sector produces very little CO2 - all the declining countries are de-industrializing, except China, whose GDP is growth is starting to wash out emissions, slightly. But look at China these last few years, as it becomes the world's workshop. Japan, which protects its industry, hasn't even really moved since 1991.*

-Jester

Afterthought - it would be fascinating to see the emissions/gdp density for the last few years. Surely the collapse of the global financial sector has sent that way up, even as emissions come slightly down due to collapse?

*Admittedly, that normalized graph does not tell the whole story by far - Japan's ratio is quite good already, as is Germany's. The US' intensity is relatively poor (Canada worse - cold country), and China's is simply terrible, even after the dramatic decline from 1991. Chad and Cambodia, on the other hand, are doing fantastically, with their terrible GDPs and near-zero emissions. Although service-heavy Switzerland is doing almost as well...

[kandrathe]

1) Denialists publish. See Lindzen, Pielke Sr., McKitrick and MacIntyre. Read Energy and Environment for the whole mess.

Wouldn't the e-mail leak suggest there is some reason for concern over the objectivity of peer review in climate science?

2) Your solutions are wishful thinking fairy tales that will not solve the problem in time to prevent CO2 concentrations from reaching 700 or 800 ppm - if it even stops there.

First, I don't have solutions. I have some suggestions, yes. Like direct action, spending that trillion in bail out money on obsoleting coal and oil fired power plants.

3) The atmosphere is not measured in GDP. This would be like claiming that Bill Gates can survive arsenic poisoning, because his arsenic/income ratio is very low. It's simply nonsensical.

No, not silly. GDP = production = emissions. You can cut emissions by hammering production. What we desire is to cut emissions without hammering production, so that is what should be measured. To ignore "per capita" ignores the role of each individual in GW, and to ignore GDP ignores the role of production on GW. China could also cut GW by executing 50% of their population, but that is not a desirable outcome either.

4) Your simple equation is hilarious. Would you like a side of saccharine with that?

Diet Coke?

5) The service sector produces very little CO2 - all the declining countries are de-industrializing, except China, whose GDP is growth is starting to wash out emissions, slightly. But look at China these last few years, as it becomes the world's workshop.

Which is also unfortunate. Production should not need to seek the lowest wage and environmental protections in the world, and we as consumers should be outraged and alarmed that our products are built on such harm.

Afterthought - it would be fascinating to see the emissions/gdp density for the last few years. Surely the collapse of the global financial sector has sent that way up, even as emissions come slightly down due to collapse?

*Admittedly, that normalized graph does not tell the whole story by far - Japan's ratio is quite good already, as is Germany's. The US' intensity is relatively poor (Canada worse - cold country), and China's is simply terrible, even after the dramatic decline from 1991. Chad and Cambodia, on the other hand, are doing fantastically, with their terrible GDPs and near-zero emissions. Although service-heavy Switzerland is doing almost as well...

Hand calculate Switzerland... I don't get 8.9 thousands. 360.152 billion / 40457 thousands is actually 8,902.09358 Thousands... I haven't checked the others, but that one jumped out as wrong. I think the problem is in the column title, and using British billions. Very confusing anyway, them using US$, Metric Tons, and British Billions. It should read "per million US $". If they are converting to US currency, then you should accept the US numerical use of billion as 1000 millions. >>SHEESH<< Also, what GDP is this, real GDP or the imaginary one used by governments?

Here is a better source with historical data for comparison. http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/climate-at...riable-468.html Note the steady decline in the US CO2 / GDP numbers which reflects growing efficiency that is also masked by increases in our GDP throughout that period, and all the while improving our air and water through environmental legislation.

http://bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView....p;LastYear=2009

I would bet the worlds GDP / CO2 has actually increased due to near constant need for electricity, heat, transportation and lowering worldwide real GDP. The next 4 to 8 years of runaway inflation will really screw things up.

Speaking of not telling the whole truth...

Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up

[Jester]

Wouldn't the e-mail leak suggest there is some reason for concern over the objectivity of peer review in climate science?

This is my point. Even if you accept the wildest claims about a total shutout of most climate literature, there are still denialist papers, published, in journals. You can read them. Most of them are in the trashy Energy and Environment, but quite a few are in more respectable publications, like Geophys. Research Letters.

No, not silly. GDP = production = emissions. You can cut emissions by hammering production. What we desire is to cut emissions without hammering production, so that is what should me measured. To ignore "per capita" ignores the role of each individual in GW, and to ignore GDP ignores the role of production on GW. China could also cut GW by executing 50% of their population, but that is not a desirable outcome either.

The atmosphere is about *emissions*. It is not measured in people, or income, or whatever else. It does not care one whit how the carbon gets there - only that it is there. We cannot say "it's okay to produce limitless carbon, so long as income always rises faster than emissions". That's ridiculous.

You also can't cut per capita emissions by killing people. That would raise, not lower, your per capita stats. It would cut total emissions - but that's precisely my point. We can ignore per capita stats, in some sense, because the final tally is measured in CO2 relative to the atmosphere, and not the economy or the population.

Hand calculate Switzerland... I don't get 8.9 thousands. 360.152 billion / 40457 thousands is actually 8,902.09358 Thousands... I haven't checked the others, but that one jumped out as wrong.

Check your units again.

360.152 billion dollars/ 40457 thousand metric tons = 360 million dollars / 40457 metric ton = 8902 dollars per metric ton, which is 8.9 thousand.

I also don't see how your other source tells a different story. It's pretty much the same stuff, isn't it?

-Jester

Afterthought: The Gore quote appears to be a misunderstanding on his part of the specifics, not a deliberate deception - although the general case is not very far off. 6 years is a short timespan, but for the melting of Arctic ice, is 20 or 30 years really that much longer? The man is not a scientist, and has never claimed to be - if you want the specifics, read the papers.

[kandrathe]

The atmosphere is about *emissions*. It is not measured in people, or income, or whatever else. It does not care one whit how the carbon gets there - only that it is there. We cannot say "it's okay to produce limitless carbon, so long as income always rises faster than emissions". That's ridiculous.

You also can't cut per capita emissions by killing people. That would raise, not lower, your per capita stats. It would cut total emissions - but that's precisely my point. We can ignore per capita stats, in some sense, because the final tally is measured in CO2 relative to the atmosphere, and not the economy or the population.

You are beginning at the end, which is fine, but I'm concerned about the process and it's collateral damages.

You can eliminate CO2 emissions through neo-luddite legislation incrementally banning emissions. However, it will result in deaths due to cold and heat where the use of fossil fuels have allowed people to inhabit otherwise uninhabitable areas (such as your beloved Canada). Fewer people also results in fewer mouths to feed, clothe or house, so you eliminate the production needed to sustain them.

My silly idea is that you take a little time (which you say we have), and use the government to provide leadership (and maybe a little incentive) to grease the skids in the right direction.

1) Direct the energy department to work on streamlining the process of implementing (pick a number) more nuclear power plants. Aim at getting them all online within 10 years, and heck if we can put a man on the moon, we should be able to be at least as advanced as France.

2) Support an Act of Congress to underwrite the banking industry in offering reduced interest 30 year loans (with a small percentage subsidy to be paid with tax dollars) for replacing coal and oil fired power plants with power plants that are zero polluting and zero GHG emissions. Let the EPA and the Energy department decide on how to reduce emissions, and how much capital to infuse into the industry to keep energy prices affordable for consumers. Call it something grandiose, like the "Green Energy USA Act". Slow and steady wins the race.

3) Rather than cash for caulkers... (i.e. wasted unaudited spending). Offer home owners an energy credit on the taxes for passing a home energy audit from their local utility. Offer home owners low interest loans for replacing their fuel oil or natural gas furnaces with zero emissions units.

4) Remove sovereign immunity from State and Federal government polluters and give the US and State governments a grace period to clean up their messes.

There is no need for some complicated, impossible to audit, carbon trading Ponzi scheme. Let's just fix it.

[--Pete]

Hi,

1) Direct the energy department to work on streamlining the process of implementing (pick a number) more nuclear power plants. Aim at getting them all online within 10 years, and heck if we can put a man on the moon, we should be able to be at least as advanced as France.

Ten years, hell. It shouldn't take more than a couple of years to get the first plants on line. It's not as if the nuclear technology needs to be developed, and the remainder (controls and concrete) are well established. Also, if plans are made to build a lot of plants (enough to replace all other power sources) much of the cost of one-of manufacturing can be made to go away.

This one would be a significant and immediate (relatively) improvement -- well worth it.

2) Support an Act of Congress to underwrite the banking industry in offering reduced interest 30 year loans (with a small percentage subsidy to be paid with tax dollars) for replacing coal and oil fired power plants with power plants that are zero polluting and zero GHG emissions. Let the EPA and the Energy department decide on how to reduce emissions, and how much capital to infuse into the industry to keep energy prices affordable for consumers. Call it something grandiose, like the "Green Energy USA Act". Slow and steady wins the race.

Incentives, penalties. Two sides of the same coin. Fine them for not reducing carbon emissions or reward them for reducing them. Except for semantics, what's the difference?

3) Rather than cash for caulkers... (i.e. wasted unaudited spending). Offer home owners an energy credit on the taxes for passing a home energy audit from their local utility. Offer home owners low interest loans for replacing their fuel oil or natural gas furnaces with zero emissions units.

The cash for clunkers was a poorly thought out idea (or a blatant sop to the auto industry). The people that drive the real clunkers cannot afford to buy a new car even with the government dole. So, a lot of not too bad cars go away, replaced with ones that are only slightly better; meanwhile the gas guzzling, oil burning, unmaintained junk stays on the road. They should have included used cars in the package, and put a tighter limit on the amount the trade improved gas mileage. But reselling used cars doesn't help Detroit, does it.

How about just letting the utility pay for the upgrade, and then let the homeowner pay it back as a fraction of their monthly energy savings. Both come out ahead (most utility companies are overburdened).

4) Remove sovereign immunity from State and Federal government polluters and give the US and State governments a grace period to clean up their messes.

Good idea. But it smacks of foxes and hen-houses. Quis custodiat . . .

There is no need for some complicated, impossible to audit, carbon trading Ponzi scheme. Let's just fix it.

Well, you have at least moved from the local to the national. I'd like to see some form of these ideas implemented. How much they would be accepted and how effective they would be would depend on how many teeth were included. I'm afraid that our toothless government might give them the relevance of sidewalk spitting laws.

So, good ideas. But they are still, at best, part of a local solution to what is a global problem. And they're mostly incentive based -- which may be OK or may be too little, too late. I agree to many of your objections to carbon taxes and credits, but I have yet to see anything else that will work as a forced, timely, and global solution. Anything not having those three properties is not a solution, just a band-aid. And, yes, forced. The majority of the world will disregard suggestions if they interfere with their self interest.

--Pete

[Jester]

You can eliminate CO2 emissions through neo-luddite legislation incrementally banning emissions. However, it will result in deaths due to cold and heat where the use of fossil fuels have allowed people to inhabit otherwise uninhabitable areas (such as your beloved Canada). Fewer people also results in fewer mouths to feed, clothe or house, so you eliminate the production needed to sustain them.

People don't just stand still in one place while they freeze to death, hoping to save a few nickels on their heating budget. If you can't afford to live in a place, the easy solution is to stop living there. There's a reason 90% of the population of Canada is along the US border, and it's not just because we really love our neighbours.

Regardless, since every sensible proposal has exemptions or credits for low income households, people who might conceivably be in danger of dying should not be unduly affected.

My silly idea is that you take a little time (which you say we have), and use the government to provide leadership (and maybe a little incentive) to grease the skids in the right direction.

Talk is cheap, but it also doesn't do anything, so I'm not hopeful about "leadership", sans expenditures. As for incentives, I'm all for it - but they will be effective in rough proportion to cost, and every dollar of expenditure is a dollar that needs to be taxed somewhere else. Surely I don't have to explain this to a libertarian. So, you're still punishing people, just different people. That seems inefficient to me - why not penalize those who pollute directly?

1) Direct the energy department to work on streamlining the process of implementing (pick a number) more nuclear power plants. Aim at getting them all online within 10 years, and heck if we can put a man on the moon, we should be able to be at least as advanced as France.

I'd pick a large number. And we are in agreement on this.

2) Support an Act of Congress to underwrite the banking industry in offering reduced interest 30 year loans (with a small percentage subsidy to be paid with tax dollars) for replacing coal and oil fired power plants with power plants that are zero polluting and zero GHG emissions. Let the EPA and the Energy department decide on how to reduce emissions, and how much capital to infuse into the industry to keep energy prices affordable for consumers. Call it something grandiose, like the "Green Energy USA Act". Slow and steady wins the race.

Replacing the entire energy system of the US in 10 years is not slow and steady. But I support it anyway. This accomplishes the same thing as a carbon tax - changing the relative incentives of building plants that do not pollute carbon vs. those that do. The difference is that you're charging different people to do it, taxpayers instead of industries, and you're locking yourselves into sweetheart loans with specific companies. However, if that's what it takes, I wouldn't be opposed to it.

3) Rather than cash for caulkers... (i.e. wasted unaudited spending). Offer home owners an energy credit on the taxes for passing a home energy audit from their local utility. Offer home owners low interest loans for replacing their fuel oil or natural gas furnaces with zero emissions units.

Any improvements in home energy efficiency are *very* good deals for the economy. Auditing a bazillion home projects would exceed the returns from the project, but I think on the whole, this is still a fantastic idea, and the opposite of wasteful.

The credit idea is just a roundabout pollution tax - rather than tax the polluter, you tax everyone, and credit the former polluter. Same difference.

Loans for zero emissions furnaces sounds like a great idea.

4) Remove sovereign immunity from State and Federal government polluters and give the US and State governments a grace period to clean up their messes.

Any idea that starts with the phrase "remove sovereign immunity" is doomed from the start.

We still need a systemic solution - something that plugs more or less all the holes, not just specific ones. Otherwise, the elasticity of demand is going to cause serious problems for potential solutions. As prices drop from less use, use will go up again as people find new ways to burn fuel.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

People don't just stand still in one place while they freeze to death, hoping to save a few nickels on their heating budget. If you can't afford to live in a place, the easy solution is to stop living there. There's a reason 90% of the population of Canada is along the US border, and it's not just because we really love our neighbours.

Historically, no, they do stay and die. I can't think of any large population that has up and moved over a significant geography due to issues with climate (or other natural challenges for that matter). I think the hallmark of humankind is our temerity in the face of the challenges of the natural world. Why else would we build a nuclear reactor over a fault line in California, or ever think Venice, or New Orleans were good ideas?

Regardless, since every sensible proposal has exemptions or credits for low income households, people who might conceivably be in danger of dying should not be unduly affected.

Because... When the crap hits the fan, there will be lots of rich people to pay for the heating and cooling of poor people. Actually, I think the reality and history will show that poor people suffer, and they tend to suffer the most when the crap does hit the economic fan and the concept of "tax the rich" fails when the number of "rich" declines. Again, no where have I seen socialism ever become other than an exercise in reducing everyone to an equal level of poverty.

Talk is cheap, but it also doesn't do anything, so I'm not hopeful about "leadership", sans expenditures. As for incentives, I'm all for it - but they will be effective in rough proportion to cost, and every dollar of expenditure is a dollar that needs to be taxed somewhere else. Surely I don't have to explain this to a libertarian. So, you're still punishing people, just different people. That seems inefficient to me - why not penalize those who pollute directly?

The reality is that "the people" pay for "change" whether you tax them, or if it shows up in the costs of goods and services. Government is merely (a potentially wasteful) middleman in the economic stream, who tends to artificially redirect the natural order of the flows of commerce. Thereby, whenever they do anything they also tend to cause harm, and unintended consequences.

Replacing the entire energy system of the US in 10 years is not slow and steady. But I support it anyway. This accomplishes the same thing as a carbon tax - changing the relative incentives of building plants that do not pollute carbon vs. those that do. The difference is that you're charging different people to do it, taxpayers instead of industries, and you're locking yourselves into sweetheart loans with specific companies. However, if that's what it takes, I wouldn't be opposed to it.

The costs of the change will be expressed either as a tax, or as a change in the price of energy. I think this way, you can remove the barriers to the change occurring, the capital risk is born by government, and industry ends up in control of the means of production. A slight cost would be born by taxpayers in providing a small profit for banks to provide the capital, and then by correctly control the supply of available energy in the system (new plants come online before old ones are decomm'd) you'd in effect be able to control the price keeping it relatively stable over the transition period. I'd even be willing to keep this model in place in perpetuity, since the abundance of cheap energy is a main driver of GDP. But, again, an unintended consequence of a higher GDP is higher standard of living and/or higher population resulting in an increased need for focus on renewable resources and waste recycling. The idiotic myopia of our current world system is that we rush from human caused crisis to human caused crisis without understanding the interconnections.

Any improvements in home energy efficiency are *very* good deals for the economy. Auditing a bazillion home projects would exceed the returns from the project, but I think on the whole, this is still a fantastic idea, and the opposite of wasteful.

Auditing a homes energy, and creating a plan for the homeowner to improve the dwelling is better than paying people to dig holes and fill them up again.

The credit idea is just a roundabout pollution tax - rather than tax the polluter, you tax everyone, and credit the former polluter. Same difference. Loans for zero emissions furnaces sounds like a great idea.

The biggest investment the government can make into the economy is to lower taxes. If you reward those that are in compliance with the overall "national strategy", then people are rewarded rather than punished, and they feel they are contributing to the greater good.

Any idea that starts with the phrase "remove sovereign immunity" is doomed from the start.

Realistically, I agree. But, we all need dreams.

We still need a systemic solution - something that plugs more or less all the holes, not just specific ones. Otherwise, the elasticity of demand is going to cause serious problems for potential solutions. As prices drop from less use, use will go up again as people find new ways to burn fuel.

I think again (referring to the myopia comment above) we are in agreement.

[Jester]

Historically, no, they do stay and die. I can't think of any large population that has up and moved over a significant geography due to issues with climate (or other natural challenges for that matter).

Well, I think you might want to go back through the annals of archaeology - people move due to significant climate and geography changes all the time, throughout history. Soil depletes? Move. River floods? Move. Ice age hits? Move. Bering ice bridge forms? Move. Forest chopped down? Move. And so on, and so forth.

However, that's not the point for modern civilization. There are only a handful of countries in the far North (and only 2 in the far South) and they're all among the richest in the world - none are poor. Are modern Scandinavians, Canadians, Americans and Scots really analogous to the people who have historically died from famines, who could not afford to move? I would tend to think they are not, and have ample resources to relocate, or simply pay the extra heating costs.

If push really comes to shove, give them an extra tax credit. We're not talking about multiplying energy prices by a thousand or anything - this is essentially a carbon tax, not a ban on all heating.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Well, I think you might want to go back through the annals of archaeology - people move due to significant climate and geography changes all the time, throughout history. Soil depletes? Move. River floods? Move. Ice age hits? Move. Bering ice bridge forms? Move. Forest chopped down? Move. And so on, and so forth.

However, that's not the point for modern civilization. There are only a handful of countries in the far North (and only 2 in the far South) and they're all among the richest in the world - none are poor. Are modern Scandinavians, Canadians, Americans and Scots really analogous to the people who have historically died from famines, who could not afford to move? I would tend to think they are not, and have ample resources to relocate, or simply pay the extra heating costs.

If push really comes to shove, give them an extra tax credit. We're not talking about multiplying energy prices by a thousand or anything - this is essentially a carbon tax, not a ban on all heating.

Well, even in the highest tides of emigration to the new world during the 1800's, many stayed behind, and where there was famine, or war, they died in large numbers. Also, the process of emigrating is not always easy, and many died trying. From an archeology perspective, population migration happens over eons or centuries where your son and his new wife live maybe a day or a weeks walk away, but are still connected to the family. Perhaps with animal transportation they may have been more loosely connected, yet tribes were connected until something catastrophic happened to break the connection. I fear what happens more often than not is that like in Pompeii, some escaped, but most were fried in a pyroclastic flow then buried under tons of ash. Just because those who might have lived there moved away, doesn't indicate an organized migration. So, what I see in the northern climates (where I've lived nearly all my life) is that people try to make living here work, even though growing seasons are inclement. Through the miracle of modern conveniences, like heat, (and sewage treatment, and medicines, and...), we suffer far less diseases than in decades past. I've tried to find some research to back up these wild claims, but alas my google-fu has failed me this afternoon. Sorry, all I've got right now are anecdotes and personal observations.

About the ban on heating... Here in my state, from late fall until late spring, the utility companies cannot shut off your power. But, come spring, if you are behind, you are cut off. And... If your power is off for more than a month, the municipalities will condemn your property as unfit to live in. Yes, it happened to someone a few blocks from me a few years ago. An older person lived there alone, and then died and the children shut the place down only to have the city threaten to condemn the place as abandoned. Of course, here if a place goes unheated for some parts of the year the pipes burst, wildlife invades, and the local yahoos throw wild spicy eggnog parties.

Relatively rich for now. Again, times change and so will the value of the CAD, or the SEK.

My perception is that it would be some what like the Little Ice Age, only it would be a lack of heat imposed by human frugality.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Well, even in the highest tides of emigration to the new world during the 1800's, many stayed behind, and where there was famine, or war, they died in large numbers. Also, the process of emigrating is not always easy, and many died trying.

While the untimely death of a person is a tragedy, the death of a large number is a natural selection process. It is to a species as an amputation is to an individual -- unpleasant but potentially life saving. Besides, compared to the population migrations of the first and early second millennium, those of the 1800s were only a small percentage of the populations involved.

From an archeology perspective, population migration happens over eons or centuries where your son and his new wife live maybe a day or a weeks walk away, but are still connected to the family.

Figuring 25 years as a generation, in less than 3 generations the Visigoths moved from the Caucasus to the central Iberian peninsula. A bit more than a week's walk per generation. They were not the only ones during that period (mid first millennium). The spreading of the Vikings was also pretty much series of long jumps interspersed with long periods of static settlement. Our knowledge of the movements of large numbers in Africa and the Americas is limited because these movements were not recoded in a manner that has come down to us. While the spread of humans from the Bering bridge to Tierra del Fuego may well have been at the rate you claim, there are some indications of rapid changes, especially in Central America. In Asia, we have the rapid movement of the Mongols from Central Asia as far West as the Balkans and as far East as a failed invasion of Japan.

I fear what happens more often than not is that like in Pompeii, some escaped, but most were fried in a pyroclastic flow then buried under tons of ash.

Not at all comparable. Perhaps it was foolish to build a city on the slopes of a dormant volcano, but that has been done (and is being done) many times throughout history. From when the volcano went active till Pompeii was destroyed was, effectively, instantaneous compared to climate change.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

While the untimely death of a person is a tragedy, the death of a large number is a natural selection process. It is to a species as an amputation is to an individual -- unpleasant but potentially life saving. Besides, compared to the population migrations of the first and early second millennium, those of the 1800s were only a small percentage of the populations involved.

Maybe. If you are assuming the ones that got killed were the less adapted ones. When geology or climate is fairly stable for decades, or centuries, then suddenly changes catching a large population by surprise, their death is tragic and not necessarily good for the species. Generally, those who are more highly specialized to their environment suffer the most.

Figuring 25 years as a generation, in less than 3 generations the Visigoths moved from the Caucasus to the central Iberian peninsula. A bit more than a week's walk per generation. They were not the only ones during that period (mid first millennium). The spreading of the Vikings was also pretty much series of long jumps interspersed with long periods of static settlement. Our knowledge of the movements of large numbers in Africa and the Americas is limited because these movements were not recoded in a manner that has come down to us. While the spread of humans from the Bering bridge to Tierra del Fuego may well have been at the rate you claim, there are some indications of rapid changes, especially in Central America. In Asia, we have the rapid movement of the Mongols from Central Asia as far West as the Balkans and as far East as a failed invasion of Japan.

There were certainly those more mobile than others, and perhaps more motivated by hunger or hostile neighbors chasing them.

Not at all comparable. Perhaps it was foolish to build a city on the slopes of a dormant volcano, but that has been done (and is being done) many times throughout history. From when the volcano went active till Pompeii was destroyed was, effectively, instantaneous compared to climate change.

Not really that incomparable. Climate change would be fairly normal, then some extreme event would make it unlivable. A storm, a cold snap, a summer without a harvest, etc. You can look at human population centers most anywhere and say, "perhaps it was stupid to build so near a coastline, or in a desert, or in a cold climate, or in a river valley, or below sea level."